Assessing the Effects of Different Harvesting Practices on the Forestry Sector’s Climate Benefits Potential: A Stand Level Theoretical Study in an Eastern Canadian Boreal Forest

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Editor of Forests,

I have reviewed the manuscript “Assessing the effects of different harvesting practices on the forestry sector’s climate benefits potential: A stand level theoretical study in an eastern Canada’s boreal forest.”.

The authors conducted a study to assess and compare the effects of different harvesting practices on the climate change mitigation potential of the forest sector, for stands typical of the boreal balsam fir-white birch landscapes of eastern Canada.

The content of the manuscript is relevant since harvest and sustainable forest management can reduce carbon and methane emissions and contribute the climate change mitigation. The paper has a relevant subject, adequate to be published in the journal Forests.

The whole manuscript is well-written. The introduction has designed the state of the art and shows the issue that will be clarified with this paper. The objective is clear. The methodology section is well described. Results are well shown and explored. The discussion was well explained to clarify the behavior of the results.

Figures should be improved since the legend is not clear to identify the scenarios.

Conclusions, in general, reflect the aim of the study and the results obtained. I missed the information that indicates which forest management is recommended to be performed in areas similar to the studied areas in order to reduce gas emissions and climate change mitigation, based on the obtained results.

Which management is suggested by the authors as most appropriate to reduce the emission of greenhouse gases and the negative effects of global warming and ensure the sustainability of these forest systems?

The authors could include some comparison of how harvest strategies and the sustainable management of forests would behave, as done in the evaluated scenarios, in subtropical or tropical regions.

Some model information is important to evaluate the uncertainties of the results provided by the model, such as: How was the model parameterized? What are the results of the sensitivity analysis of the model? What is the margin of uncertainty of the simulations?

 

I made some more comments, as follows below.

Figures 2 and 3: Insert the legend for the main color lines to turn easy to identify the management. It was hard to remember the meaning of all acronyms used for all scenarios.

Figure 5: Correct the legend with numbers subscript (CH4 and CO2).

 

Conclusion section: Which management is recommended by the authors and based on the results to be performed in the areas in order to reduce the gas emission, to climate change mitigation, and to provide lower negative impacts to the environment.

Author Response

On behalf of all the authors, I would like to express our gratitude to both of you for your time and relevant comments. We have made every effort to address them. All revisions can be found in the manuscript highlighted in bold text.

Please see the attachment for detailed answers.

Thank you.

Lucas MOREAU

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

This study assesses the effects of different harvesting practices, on the stand level (1-ha plots), on climate change mitigation potential in Quebec, Canada. This assessment was based on modelled carbon balance and associated radiative forcing of emissions and removals from mixed fir, birch and spruce forest ecosystems, wood product decay, and product substitution markets. Reference (unharvested) stand data are based on two case studies in the Montmorency forest, in Quebec. The principal conclusion is that the mitigation potential of forest products is relatively limited, with harvesting practices not significantly resulting in any climate change mitigation benefit in terms of radiative forcing, at least over a modelled 60 year rotation. The data are important and should be of broad interest to the readership of ‘Forests’. I offer some comments by line number, below, which are mainly focused on clarifying the results and justifying some of the methods. I hope these are constructive in revision.

 

Line 95: Some info on soils would be nice, soil taxonomy?

 

Line 121: What is this rate of windthrow assumption based on? 

 

Line 153: What is meant by "stable" DOM? Is this in the Senez-Gagnon et al. manuscript?

 

How were changes in soil type and drainage accounted for?  Were these always the same?

 

Line 170: The assumption that C does not accrue beyond 80 years, derived from Harel et al., is based on boreal balsam fir (Abies balsamea (L.) Mill.) forests of Quebec. I’m assuming these are broadly representative of the mixed fir/birch/spruce forests depicted here?

 

Line 191: What are these half life assumptions based on? 

 

Line 200: These percentages are pretty precise (100th decimal place); what are they based on?

 

Line 251, and figures: These roman numerals are not intuitive, and Figure 2 and its legend do not "stand on their own".  I suggest using plain language to describe the scenarios, or at least include a table describing them to accommodate Figure 2.

 

Figure 2, and others: What is the rationale for the gray lines depicting “other scenarios for the same harvest type”? What differentiates these alternative scenarios, and why was one (colored lines) selected for each?  Sorry if I missed this in the methods, but it would be good to clarify in the legends. 

Author Response

On behalf of all the authors, I would like to express our gratitude to both of you for your time and relevant comments. We have made every effort to address them. All revisions can be found in the manuscript highlighted in bold text.

Please see the attachment for detailed answers.

Thank you.

Lucas MOREAU

Author Response File: Author Response.docx